Re: [jbpm-dev] Proposal for jBPM5 first release

Hi, Mauricio, Does this mean you recommend switching to drools for this? I heard that jBPM5 should be some kind of merge between drools and jBPM4. Is it better to wait for jBPM5? I somehow have the feeling jBPM4 is good and looks good, but Drools is more prooven and extensible. Like JPA vs. Hibernate (I know Hibernate supports JPA). Greetings, Daniel Am 12.08.2010 17:42, schrieb Mauricio Salatino: Hi Daniel, Sounds pretty much as my work in Drools Flow for variable persistence strategy. Maybe with a couple of extra persters you can get what you want. Greetings. On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Daniel Migowski <dmigowski(a)ikoffice.de&gt;wrote: > Hi, all, > > I know the proposal for jBPM5 has been made some time ago, but maybe this > wish could make it into the first release. > > I need some way to store the state of a process instance outside of jBPM. > I have about 100.000 orders in my system, most are done, and about 4000 in > processing. I would love to be able to define a process, and let the process > instance store the state of it by itself, or by a plugin, in my order > tables. This would make me able to update the state of a process with a > simple sql query on my regular data. > > Currently I build some ugly workaround on jBPM4, where I tried to capture > the state in a few fields of my order table, but this is not really a nice > way to do it. In addition, all scripts that update the orders from external > systems (is done in some cases) will have to update process state in jBPM by > using jBPM API (not nice). > > Other entities of my systems should have their own processes attached. I > would love to be able to plug some kind of persistence for process instances > (not history data, just processes) into the jBPM system, to make my orders > appear to the jBPM system as processes with state, referenced only by a > String ID, like done in jBPM 4. > > Regards, > Daniel Migowski >